Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  K.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1996 - 28376/95

  Series A no. 244, p. 24, para.
• EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85

  THYNNE, WILSON AND GUNNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 03.12.1996 - 28376/95

  judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 59512/00

  BLACKSTOCK v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  The Divisional Court proceeded to consider the relevant Convention case-law, quoting from K.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28376/95, Commission decision of 3 December 1996, unreported, and from Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93).

  The decision of the Secretary of State not to follow the recommendation of the Parole Board to transfer the applicant to an open prison following his review in June 1998 was not a decision which determined the lawfulness of the applicant's detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 4. It referred inter alia to the Commission decision in K.M. v. the United Kingdom (no. 28376/95, decision of 3 December 1996) rejecting as inadmissible a similar complaint and to the Court's judgment in Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A, no. 93) in which the Court stated that Article 5 § 4 did not guarantee a right to judicial control of the legality of all aspects or details of the detention in question.

• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 16084/03

  MORLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The applicant's complaints about his transfer is essentially directed to the conditions in which he was detained and that the decision of the Secretary of State to return him to prison from the hospital was not one which determined the lawfulness of his detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 4: it merely determined where the applicant was to be detained (e.g. K.M. v. U.K., no. 28376/95, (dec.) 3 December 1996).